That's about the size of ithttp://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2005/08/09/449438.aspxOn how sizes are reported in the news.en-USTelligent Evolution Platform Developer Build (Build: 5.6.50428.7875)re: That's about the size of ithttp://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2005/08/09/449438.aspx#452389Wed, 17 Aug 2005 01:24:10 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:452389David Walker&quot;Analogies are a free way to pull in your favorite connotation.&quot;
<br>
<br>My Dad hates analogies. He says &quot;Tell me the thing itself, don't tell me something else that it's similar to.&quot;
<br>
<br>I read the following somewhere: &quot;Analogies are like feathers on a snake&quot;.
<br>
<br>Yes, it's recursive. Analogies are unhelpful, unnecessary, and so on. For some people, at least, and especially when they are used poorly. I suppose analogies can occasionally be helpful, when they are not stupid.<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=452389" width="1" height="1">re: That's about the size of ithttp://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2005/08/09/449438.aspx#452321Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:01:11 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:452321Howard ChengReminds me of an old SNL Weekend Update bit where Dennis Miller explains the $1 trillion deficit (don't remember the exact figure) as such: Imagine you had 100-billion-dollar bills. It would take ten of those to match the deficit!<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=452321" width="1" height="1">re: That's about the size of ithttp://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2005/08/09/449438.aspx#452309Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:27:03 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:452309CornedBeeSome of these comparisons, e.g. the 12-inch ruler, may seem stupid, but actually help comprehension. Now, I use centimeters, not inches, but let's say they talk about &quot;as long as a 30-centimeter ruler&quot;. Now, if they said &quot;30 centimeters long&quot; I'd probably within half a second could imagine how long, approximately, that is. But mentioning the very common ruler length of 30 centimeters as a reference gives me an immediate understanding, without any delay.
<br>The human mind is just not all that well suited to deal with abstract numbers. Analogies, even when they sound stupid, are more intuitive.
<br>
<br>That's not an excuse for 1509 killer whales. First, I have no idea what a killer whale actually wheighs, so the whole thing does not help my understanding in the least. Second, the number of whales given is already so large that we get back to abstract numbers, giving no advantage over the metrics.
<br>Now, if they said that it's about the weight of a frigate or something ...<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=452309" width="1" height="1">re: That's about the size of ithttp://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2005/08/09/449438.aspx#450986Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:49:11 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:450986Matthew ChaboudYou guys are too busy being 'smart' to notice that the holes that you are poking may not be holes at all.
<br>
<br>If one is talking about detection of objects, saying that something is the size of a &quot;3-inch bolt&quot; indicates that only one measure is provided. The remaining dimensions are to be experientially determined by the listener. Stating this size with an example bolt (they keep several at the Space Control Center) indicates that they track objects with less volume/mass than, say, 3-inch metal cubes.
<br>
<br>A cruising altitude of 32,000 feet is *just* that. This would indicate a Westbound flight, as Eastbound flights cruise at intervals of odd thousands of feet. This is not a matter of significant digits. It's done to keep planes flying in opposite directions at least 1000 feet from one another. Of course, all of these altitudes are as read on altimeters set to 29.92 inches of mercury in Class A airspace (from 18,000 feet to 60,000 feet). This keeps all aircraft with properly calibrated altimeters on the same page.
<br>
<br>And, no, one's weight in orbit is not appreciably less than one's weight on the earth's surface. Weight describes the attraction between two bodies, and the constant 'freefall' of a body in orbit gives the appearance of weightlessness. Here's a link to a lesson that, from the looks of it, is intended for children:
<br>
<br><a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/circles/u6l4d.html">http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/circles/u6l4d.html</a>
<br>
<br>There is a difference between being pedantic and being inaccurate. Make sure that you're on the right side of this line before you deride the foibles of others.
<br><div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=450986" width="1" height="1">re: That's about the size of ithttp://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2005/08/09/449438.aspx#450353Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:49:22 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:450353Colin WilsonHere in the UK, sizes of landmasses are for some reason always equated to the size of Wales.
<br>
<br>I spotted one just today in The Register -
<br> <a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/11/melting_siberia_threat">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/11/melting_siberia_threat</a>
<br>
<br>'The Size of Wales' even has it's own Wikipedia entry -
<br>
<br><a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_size_of_Wales">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_size_of_Wales</a><div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=450353" width="1" height="1">re: That's about the size of ithttp://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2005/08/09/449438.aspx#450216Thu, 11 Aug 2005 05:35:57 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:450216Dewi MorganNew Scientist's Feedback section is a great source of these. Some choice quotes froma quick archive search...
<br>
<br>13 Dec: from an article entitled &quot;Gritty facts&quot; in a recent Norfolk County Council newsletter:
<br>
<br>&quot;Norfolk County Council will stockpile 13,000 tonnes of salt for the coming winter, that's about the same weight as 1625 killer whales.
<br>
<br>&quot;Each gritter will be sent out carrying on average 6.5 tonnes of salt, that's the equivalent of 12 polar bears.
<br>
<br>&quot;It sounds a lot, but not when you consider the 56 frontline gritters will be covering a distance of 1839 miles of priority routes. That's almost the same distance as to Moscow and halfway back!&quot;
<br>
<br>20 Dec: The BBC South Ceefax page recently ran a report about Britain's biggest Christmas tree, [...] assuring us that the tree[...] is &quot;as bright as 27 electric fires&quot;
<br>
<br>9 July: FORBES Magazine [contained] an article stating that 1 in 8 pounds sterling spent in British shops goes to the supermarket chain Tesco. Then, [...] it helpfully informs us that this is equivalent to 1.89 in every 15.15 US dollars or 1.43 in every 11.48 euros.
<br>
<br>30 July (and the best of the bunch!): Gregory Skinner stumbled on the &quot;Ciao! shopping intelligence&quot; review of the Canon BJC 85 printer. This tells us that: &quot;The printer is tiny - about a 12-inch ruler long by half a 12-inch ruler wide&quot;
<br>
<br>...there are many more, and thousands more scientific ausements, but I guess you'd have to subscribe to read them all.<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=450216" width="1" height="1">re: That's about the size of ithttp://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2005/08/09/449438.aspx#450182Thu, 11 Aug 2005 03:15:29 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:450182anonMy favourite unhelpful conversion was in a recent article that noted that &quot;&#163;1 in every &#163;5 spent in the UK was spent...&quot;, which was converted along the lines of: &quot;$1.71 in every $8.55...&quot; <div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=450182" width="1" height="1">re: That's about the size of ithttp://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2005/08/09/449438.aspx#449898Wed, 10 Aug 2005 17:50:31 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:449898Robert Konigsberg&gt; Actually, 10cm is 3.9 inches; if he wanted to remain fixated on bolts, he should've said &quot;That's about the size of a four-inch bolt.&quot;
<br>He's an astronomer, being within an order of magnitude is impressive.<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=449898" width="1" height="1">re: That's about the size of ithttp://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2005/08/09/449438.aspx#449869Wed, 10 Aug 2005 17:01:56 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:449869Andreas MagnussonNorman:
<br>&gt; The kid might have previously lived in or visited a country where taxes are added onto the posted price.
<br>
<br>Nah, I doubt it, it was more the case that we had two kinds of pre-packed candy bags. One was about $0.5 and the other about $1 (this was in Sweden so I've made a very rough currency conversion). Thus we nick-named the candy bags &quot;$0.5-bag&quot; and &quot;$1-bag&quot;.<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=449869" width="1" height="1">re: That's about the size of ithttp://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2005/08/09/449438.aspx#449836Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:08:43 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:449836Nick LambThe aircraft altitude example has two red herrings
<br>
<br>1. Unlike a scientific measurement it does not include a good indication of precision or accuracy. We may reasonably assume that it's not precise to +/- 1mm since the unit used is too large, but can we conclude that they mean +/- 1000ft ? Why not +/- 100ft or even 0.5 ft ?
<br>
<br>2. Actually the precision (in meters) is about right. The auto-pilot on a passenger jet is easily good enough to maintain stable cruise with a variation of perhaps a couple of metres. The pilot dials in the altitude specified by control, which will always be a round number, so the main source of error is the accuracy of the altimeter, and those are getting very good these days.<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=449836" width="1" height="1">re: That's about the size of ithttp://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2005/08/09/449438.aspx#449819Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:45:28 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:449819TCSome folks said:
<br>&gt; &gt; &quot;'a cruising altitude of 32000 feet
<br>&gt; &gt; (9754 meters).' Somehow two significant
<br>&gt; &gt; digits have been stretch to four...&quot;
<br>&gt; True as far as it concerns non-science
<br>&gt; writing. However, in science work, if you
<br>&gt; wish to retain the same level of accuracy,
<br>&gt; you must convert 32000 feet to the more
<br>&gt; explicit form (32000 +- 500), and this into
<br>&gt; meters as (9754 +- 152.4) ...
<br>
<br>Huh? Say I define a new unit called the Duh. 1 Duh = 1.23456789 feet precisely. Are you saying that &quot;to retain the same level of accuracy&quot;, a measurement of &quot;1000 Duh's&quot; should be translated to &quot;1234.56789 feet&quot; (+- whatever)? That seems, to me, to be creating significant figures where none existed before.
<br>
<br>TC<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=449819" width="1" height="1">re: That's about the size of ithttp://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2005/08/09/449438.aspx#449768Wed, 10 Aug 2005 07:37:34 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:449768pUnk&quot;I stopped reading newspapers a long while ago, because the news stories showed such poor writing skill that I couldn't focus on the content anymore.&quot; -- Trey
<br>
<br>Me too. Now I read blogs.<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=449768" width="1" height="1">re: That's about the size of ithttp://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2005/08/09/449438.aspx#449758Wed, 10 Aug 2005 06:47:48 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:449758Norman Diamond&gt; (And don't forget that a kilogram weighs
<br>&gt; about the same as two pounds of pebbles.)
<br>
<br>Yup, zero equals zero. Remember, they're in orbit. No weight for multiple objects.
<br>
<br>But one kg still masses one kg, even if it's on the moon where it weighs about 16% of what it would weigh on earth.
<br>
<br>Tuesday, August 09, 2005 11:14 AM by Andreas Magnusson
<br>&gt; One day this kid of ~10 yrs comes and asks
<br>&gt; me: &quot;How much are the $1-bag of candies?&quot;
<br>
<br>The kid might have previously lived in or visited a country where taxes are added onto the posted price. Japan was that way for a few years. Prior to that, when most Japanese had no experience with that kind of system, when they visited certain other countries they would be confused when a $1.00 item came to $1.07 or whatever.
<br>
<br>Tuesday, August 09, 2005 11:49 AM by Arlie Davis
<br>&gt; Football fields and human hairs are the SI
<br>&gt; units of middle America.
<br>
<br>Used in most of the world except for middle America and sometimes a few other random countries? Or perhaps you mean that football fields and human hairs are the NON-SI units of middle America?<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=449758" width="1" height="1">re: That's about the size of ithttp://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2005/08/09/449438.aspx#449742Wed, 10 Aug 2005 05:52:50 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:449742Pax Buxley:
<br>&quot;'a cruising altitude of 32000 feet (9754 meters).' Somehow two significant digits have been stretch to four...&quot;.
<br>
<br>Reminds me of a joke about the museum curator giving a tour and telling the assembled masses that the dinosaur bones in this display were 65,000,017 years old.
<br>
<br>When questioned about how he could be so certain, he replied &quot;Well, I started here 17 years ago and they told me then that these bones were 65,000,000 years old, so ...&quot;.
<br>
<br>Pax.
<br><div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=449742" width="1" height="1">re: That's about the size of ithttp://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2005/08/09/449438.aspx#449711Wed, 10 Aug 2005 03:59:40 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:449711denisBuxley:
<br>&quot;'a cruising altitude of 32000 feet (9754 meters).' Somehow two significant digits have been stretch to four...&quot;
<br>
<br>True as far as it concerns non-science writing. However, in science work, if you wish to retain the same level of accuracy, you must convert 32000 feet to the more explicit form (32000 +- 500), and this into meters as (9754 +- 152.4). Any omission loses accuracy, and at least as far as conversions of a single figure are concerned, accuracy can only be lost, not gained, so that is something to avoid...<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=449711" width="1" height="1">re: That's about the size of ithttp://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2005/08/09/449438.aspx#449708Wed, 10 Aug 2005 03:42:33 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:449708Jonas GrumbySome of those remind me of that email that went around about the worst HS creative writing analogies... things like &quot;He was as tall as a 6 foot 4 inch tree&quot;, or &quot;the brick wall was the color of a brick red crayola crayon&quot;.<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=449708" width="1" height="1">re: That's about the size of ithttp://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2005/08/09/449438.aspx#449619Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:06:36 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:449619Tom Seddon&quot;football field&quot; is always dubious anyway, end zones or no, as nobody ever specifies which game they are talking about :)<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=449619" width="1" height="1">re: That's about the size of ithttp://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2005/08/09/449438.aspx#449606Tue, 09 Aug 2005 23:38:58 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:449606BuxleyA related pet peeve of mine is conjuring more significant digits of accuracy than appropriate while doing some sort of conversion. For example, a newspaper story talking about a 747 flying at &quot;a cruising altitude of 32000 feet (9754 meters).&quot; Somehow two significant digits have been stretch to four...<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=449606" width="1" height="1">re: That's about the size of ithttp://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2005/08/09/449438.aspx#449605Tue, 09 Aug 2005 23:37:35 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:449605Jerry PiskEnd zones are not the only sticky issues - are they talking about the width, length (with or without end zones) or maybe the area of a football field?<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=449605" width="1" height="1">re: That's about the size of ithttp://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2005/08/09/449438.aspx#449601Tue, 09 Aug 2005 23:34:31 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:449601Tim of Angle&quot;As thick as a 1 1/2-inch cable&quot; does not, in fact, mean 1 1/2 inches thick - cables are rated by circumference, not by diameter, so a 1 1/2-inch cable would be slightly less than 1/2 inch thick. (Why someone would think that the comparison would mean anything to anybody other than an old sailor is, of course, another question.)<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=449601" width="1" height="1">re: That's about the size of ithttp://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2005/08/09/449438.aspx#449582Tue, 09 Aug 2005 22:49:24 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:449582James SchendThe thing that bothers me about &quot;the size of a football field&quot;... are they including the end zones? The end zones make a huge difference when you're talking about size. (I get the general impression that &quot;size of a football field&quot; means 100 yards, or with no end zones. But it's still stupid... if you're going to use a moronic made-up unit, at least make sure it's a precise one.)<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=449582" width="1" height="1">re: That's about the size of ithttp://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2005/08/09/449438.aspx#449580Tue, 09 Aug 2005 22:48:23 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:449580GridmanI've mostly noticed that things of great force or things that release a great deal of energy, (hurricanes, earthquakes etc) are referenced to Hiroshima atomic bombs. They omit the small detail of the RATE of the energy release.
<br>
<br>I have not tried to calculate it, but I wouldn't be surprised that the energy released by the falling leaves of autumn would equate to X number of Hiroshima atomic bombs.<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=449580" width="1" height="1">re: That's about the size of ithttp://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2005/08/09/449438.aspx#449554Tue, 09 Aug 2005 21:46:44 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:449554ScottThis brings to mind how they will sometimes compare things to the &quot;weight of a 747&quot;. If I wanted to pick a thing for comparison's sake, I wouldn't pick something that's intentionally built as light as possible.<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=449554" width="1" height="1">re: That's about the size of ithttp://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2005/08/09/449438.aspx#449544Tue, 09 Aug 2005 21:41:30 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:449544foxyshadis&quot;as thick as a 1 1/2 inch cable&quot; shows more a distinct lack of imagination (can he not think of anything that thick without resorting to including the measure, such as a small pipe or a young tree trunk?) than overreaching for the masses' sake.<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=449544" width="1" height="1">re: That's about the size of ithttp://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2005/08/09/449438.aspx#449527Tue, 09 Aug 2005 20:55:01 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:449527vishnu vyasLOL.. interesting read, this is the only reason I keep returning to this blog again and again!<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=449527" width="1" height="1">